Research Impact on the Move: A Study of Capacity Development for Reciprocal Knowledge Mobilization in Canada
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This doctoral thesis provides a systematic investigation into the capacity development for knowledge mobilization (KMb) within the field of education. Despite the substantial body of research evidence that could significantly enhance educational outcomes, there remains a considerable disconnection between these findings and their practical application. This doctoral study investigates the challenges and mechanisms of KMb, focusing on capacity development and reciprocity as pivotal elements in bridging this gap.The manuscript-based study adopts a multi-level approach to identify and address the gaps in the literature on capacity development for KMb and reciprocity of KMb relationships between academics and community-based organizations (CBOs). This approach involves a systematic scoping review of the related literature, followed by qualitative interviews with end beneficiaries such as graduate students and CBOs. The scoping review methodology (Chapter 3) delves into the nuances of capacity development for KMb processes and emphasizes the need for tailored initiatives that align with specific contextual needs and challenges. The chapter also highlights a pervasive inconsistency between the articulated goals of research organizations and their actual KMb capacity development practices, potentially undermining the efficacy of KMb efforts. It calls for a more integrated and systematic approach to enhance the accessibility and availability of capacity support. Informed by the gaps in the literature and the inconsistency between research evidence and current practices of capacity development for KMb, the doctoral research explores the challenges faced by graduate students in the Faculty of Education at McGill University as they engage in KMb activities (Chapter 4). It particularly focuses on capacity development needs within the context of Canadian higher education. The study uses a qualitative case study approach to gain an in-depth understanding and capture the nuances of experiences. It identifies substantial barriers to effective engagement in KMb activities due to inadequate organizational support and misaligned incentive structures. Furthermore, the research underscores the importance of developing KMb capacities tailored to graduate students' specific needs, including connecting and engaging with non-university partners and the practical application of research findings.As Chapters 3 and 4 emphasize a relational approach to building capacities for KMb and creating supportive infrastructures for active engagement with non-university partners, the study in Chapter 5 progresses to incorporate a more critical approach to KMb by drawing on the concept of reciprocity. It investigates the viewpoints and perspectives of CBOs in Montreal about their challenges in participating in KMb and receiving benefits for their contributions to the KMb process. This approach acknowledges the unique and strategic position of community organizations in amplifying the reach of research evidence while emphasizing the need for more beneficial and equitable arrangements for KMb structures. The study's findings highlight several barriers to effective KMb engagement for community organizations, including limited access to resources, insufficient training in research, and a lack of recognition of the value of community knowledge.In conclusion, this doctoral research provides a comprehensive understanding of the systemic challenges and opportunities in KMb across academic and non-academic domains, advocating for a more inclusive and effective KMb ecosystem. It offers practical strategies to enhance KMb practices through capacity development and reciprocal KMb relationships. It calls for an integrated approach to capacity development that views KMb not only through a technical academic lens but also as a social process that recognizes the unique needs and benefits of non-university partners
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it